AMERIDEBT INC.: Judge Allows $172M FTC Consumer Suit To Proceed---------------------------------------------------------------Even as the class action lawsuit against its founder Andris Pukke is sidetracked, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte ruled that the Federal Trade Commission's $172 million lawsuit against AmeriDebt, Inc. would go forward, The Associated Press reports. The federal judge ruled against the FTC's request to issue a summary judgment in its case against AmeriDebt Inc., which had the effect of moving the case forward for a trial.

Mr. Pukke's attorney, John Williams, is reporting that his client's intent to file for bankruptcy protection, which would put on hold, as far as Mr. Pukke is concerned, the consumer class-action lawsuit against Mr. Pukke and others. He called the judge's decision "a good ruling."

Judge Messitte noted that if Pukke does file for bankruptcy, the class action lawsuit's scheduled January court date would be replaced by the FTC suit.

FTC officials did not see the ruling as one in favor of AmeriDebt or against the merits of their case. According to Joel Winston, associate director of the FTC's division of financial practices, "We remain very confident that we will be able to prove our case at trial and win a judgment against Mr. Pukke."

Even though Judge Messitte acknowledged the strength of the FTC's evidence, he still said, "There is no risk of error in denying summary judgment."

The FTC lawsuit, which was filed in 2003, alleges AmeriDebt collected about $172 million in hidden fees from customers. Court filings indicated that much of that money was allegedly transferred to a Pukke for-profit company called DebtWorks from which he withdrew large sums.

In April, Judge Messitte froze the assets of AmeriDebt after the FTC alleged Pukke was transferring money to offshore accounts, trusts and family members to shield it from the FTC lawsuit. The FTC is hoping to use any recovered money to reimburse AmeriDebt customers.

Mr. Pukke's attorney said his client was not trying to hide his funds and denied that he spent excessively on personal items.

AmeriDebt, which was founded by Mr. Pukke in 1996 and was once based in Germantown, Maryland, agreed earlier this year to shut down its credit counseling operations. The company, which grew to become one of the nation's largest nonprofit credit counseling firms, filed for bankruptcy a year ago.

BARRICINI CANDY: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Soy Nuts------------------------------------------------------------ Barricini Candy of Moosic, PA is recalling 690 cases (24,408 units) Catherine's Finest Pecan Caramel Clusters 8 oz. and 85 cases (2,040 units) Shwom's Caramel Pecan Clusters 6 oz., because it may contain undeclared soy nuts (soy). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or soy derivatives run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recall was initiated when a discovery was made during a review of packaging, that product containing soy nuts (soy) was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of soy nuts (soy). Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was a result of improper labeling on packaging supplied by the previous ownership of the newly acquired company.

Consumers who have purchased either the Catherine's Finest Pecan Caramel Clusters or Shwom's Caramel Pecan Clusters are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Customer Service at Barricini Candy directly at 1-800-849-9096.

BERKELEY PREMIUM: OR Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers filed a lawsuit against an Ohio company for misleading Oregonians about the effectiveness of its so-called "nutraceuticals" or herbal supplements and for failing to inform consumers who thought that they were receiving a "free" trial offer when in fact, they were being enrolled in a plan that automatically billed them for future shipments of products. Named in the lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court are Steve Warshak of Cincinnati, Ohio and his firms Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Lifekey, Inc., Boland Naturals, Inc., Warner Health Care, and Wagner Nutraceuticals.

"More than 100 Oregon consumers complained to our office and the Better Business Bureau about being enticed with the promise of a free trial offer only to be billed for pill shipments that they had not ordered," he said. "In addition, these companies inundated our state with outrageous claims about herbal remedies and were unable to back them up with scientific evidence. This type of marketing will not be tolerated in our state."

The Company makes an array of herbal products that claim to produce "firmer, fuller" erections for men, increased libido for women and such things as better night vision, memory recall, weight control and energy. A silent television character named Smiling Bob promotes its best-known product, a male enhancement pill called Enzyte.

The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Warshak's companies, which expected to take in a quarter of a billion dollars in sales in 2004 through the sale of 15 different products around the nation (including, Altovis, Avlimil, Avlimil Complete, Dromias, Enzyte, Mioplex, Ogoplex, Numovil, Pinadol, Prulato, Rogisen, Rovicid, Suvaril, Nuproxi, and Rudofil) hooked customers with advertisements, including the "Smiling Bob" Enzyte commercials and other commercials that resembled advertisements for genuine pharmaceutical drugs, promising "free" 30-day trials of their products. When consumers called the companies' toll-free numbers or visited their websites to order the pills, they were asked to provide credit or debit card information to pay shipping and handling charges. But the companies failed to tell consumers that they would automatically bill them for additional shipments of pills. When consumers tried to stop the automatic payments for what the companies called their "continuity program" or "home delivery plan," Mr. Warshak's companies often made it difficult for people to cancel their subscriptions or get their money back.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Mr. Warshak and his companies made unsubstantiated claims about their products' effectiveness. The Company and the other companies described their products as "the best natural supplements to help improve your health" and called them "nutraceuticals." The complaint alleges that in reality, the companies did not have competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up their advertised health claims.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for all victims and seeks a permanent injunction barring Mr. Warshak and his companies from operating any business in Oregon that deals with prescription and non-prescription drugs, nutritional supplements or any products that claim to cure or prevent diseases in humans. The lawsuit also seeks $25,000 in civil penalties per each Unlawful Trade Practice violation and reasonable attorney fees.

In addition, the Attorneys General of Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Arkansas filed similar suits against the Company in their respective courts. In the multi-state investigation, there were extensive document review, undercover purchases and lengthy settlement negotiations that ultimately failed to reach a settlement so it became necessary for the Attorneys General to sue.

In March 2005, U.S. Postal Inspectors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration and the Internal Revenue Service raided three of the Company's buildings in Ohio. No charges, arrests or indictments have been made and the joint investigation continues.

Consumers want to file complaints against these companies may call the Attorney General's consumer hotline at (503) 378-4320 (Salem area only), (503) 229-5576 (Portland area only) or toll-free at 1-877-877-9392, or visit the Website: http://www.doj.state.or.us.

CAR CARE: Ohio Attorney General Initiates Consumer Fraud Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit early this month against an Arizona company for using deceptive advertising tactics which misled consumers into believing the company was associated with the consumer's auto dealership or the manufacturer of the car. The lawsuit also alleges that Car Care Warranty, LLC (doing business as Vehicle Owner Warranty Notification Center) telemarketed in Ohio without being registered with the Attorney General as a telephone solicitor.

"Our investigation turned up unfair and deceptive advertising and telemarketing practices by this company," he said. "Ohioans have suffered due to these bad business practices and I intend to fight for their rights under Ohio law."

An Attorney General investigation uncovered violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and Telephone Solicitation Sales Act (TSSA) in Car Care's use of direct mail and telemarketing to sell extended service contracts for automobiles. The Attorney General's investigation revealed that the company is not associated with any auto dealer or manufacturer and that the advertising and sales pitch misled consumers.

The Company also violated the TSSA by not registering as a telephone solicitor with the Attorney General's Office, failing to maintain a $50,000 surety bond, and not getting written permission from consumers before they billed them for the extended service contracts.

Consumers' complaints state that the extended service contracts would cost approximately $2,000, with a $400 down payment usually required. Some complaints allege that consumers did not receive the contracts in a timely manner or that requests for refunds were not honored by Car Care. Attorney General Petro is requesting that Car Care reimburse all consumers who have been damaged by the actions of the company, pay a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation for any CSPA violations, and pay a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for each TSSA violation.

CARDSYSTEMS INC.: WA AG Seeks More Info on Card Security Breach---------------------------------------------------------------Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna is requesting that the company provide information about affected Washington consumers, after a recently reported security breach at CardSystems, Inc. "Remedial steps must be taken immediately to minimize risk to consumers," he said.

MasterCard International, Inc. announced the breach Friday, June 17,2005 and said it was traced to the Atlanta-based Company, which processes credit card and other payments for banks and merchants. Hackers installed a rogue computer program that extracts data, potentially compromising 40 million accounts from MasterCard, Visa and other card issuers. Records on roughly 200,000 accounts were apparently stolen, according to news reports, but not social security numbers or birth dates.

Attorney General McKenna sent a letter today to the Company seeking details about how the breach occurred and how many Washington consumers were affected. The letter also asks what steps the Company is taking to notify consumers and how it plans to prevent future security breaches. He asked that the information be provided by June 30.

"The breach that occurred at CardSystems is the latest in a disturbing series of cases affecting valuable consumer financial data," he added. "These events have pushed privacy matters to the top of the public policy agenda. I look forward to working with the financial industry, consumer advocates and law enforcement to determine what, if any, legal and regulatory changes are needed to protect consumer information and reduce the risk of fraud."

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: IL Judge To Hear Summary Judgment Motion--------------------------------------------------------------Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian is set to hear Cincinnati Insurance Company's motion for a summary judgment in a class action case at a hearing June 29, The Madison County Record reports.

In his suit, Mark Eavenson, which is represented by the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, alleges Cincinnati Insurance only paid part of the claim he filed and accuses the insurance company of using computer software to uniformly reduce benefits that are paid to doctors. The class action suit was filed in October 2003.

Additionally, Mr. Eavenson, a Granite City chiropractor, who has initiated more than 25 class action suits in Madison County, is also claiming that prior to treating a Cincinnati-insured patient for personal injuries sustained in a 2001 workplace accident, he had obtained a valid assignment of claim, which was recognized by Cincinnati through its partial payment of the expenses.

Mr. Eavenson claims that he billed Cincinnati more than $1,000 for the medical treatment, which he claims was reasonable for the services provided. Cincinnati allegedly only paid him part of the claim, Mr. Eaverson's suit states. He further alleges that biased software used by Cincinnati arbitrarily lowers the cap that does not reflect actual reasonable expenses of practitioners and that Cincinnati uses this database knowing it is biased and designed to reduce what are in fact reasonable charges.

CITIFINANCIAL: Informs 3.9M Customers About Lost Computer Tapes---------------------------------------------------------------CitiFinancial has begun mailing letters to 3.9 million CitiFinancial Branch Network customers whose personal information was on computer tapes that were lost by UPS while in transit to a credit bureau, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced in a statement.

The tapes contained information about CitiFinancial branch network customers in the United States as well as customers with closed accounts from CitiFinancial Retail Services. The tapes did not contain any customer information from CitiFinancial Auto, CitiFinancial Mortgage or any other Citigroup business. CitiFinancial said it had no reason to believe that this information has been used inappropriately, nor has it received any reports of unauthorized activity. Furthermore, there was no information on these tapes relating to customers of the CitiFinancial network operations in Canada or Puerto Rico.

"We deeply regret this incident, which occurred in spite of the enhanced security procedures we require of our couriers," said Mr. Kevin Kessinger, Executive Vice President of Citigroup's Global Consumer Group and President of Consumer Finance North America. "There is little risk of the accounts being compromised because customers have already received their loans, and no additional credit may be obtained from CitiFinancial without prior approval of our customers, either by initiating a new application or by providing positive proof of identification. Beginning in July, this data will be sent electronically in encrypted form."

"We are making every effort to ensure that our customers are aware of what we are doing and what we suggest they do to protect their identity. We are committed to ensuring that our customers have the support they need to monitor their credit and know how to respond should they identify any problems," concluded Mr. Kessinger.

"Customer security is of paramount importance to Citigroup," said Mr. Debby Hopkins, Chief Operations and Technology Office of Citigroup. "While this incident affects the customers of only one of our businesses, we put significant effort into assuring that our data protection procedures meet and exceed industry standards at all of our businesses, and are reviewing the issues here as part of this ongoing effort."

The Company is believed to be engaging in deceptive telephone solicitations in North Dakota. The Company has been calling consumers claiming to be from Wal-Mart and offering consumers vouchers for Wal-Mart shopping sprees worth up to $500, in return for which the consumer agrees to pay a nominal fee by automatic bank withdrawal. The consumers were asked for bank account information and to authorize automatic withdrawal. The Company used the account information to commit the consumer to various additional and automatic charges for movie and health services.

Wal-Mart has not authorized the calls, or any vouchers for shopping sprees, and is not affiliated with the bogus solicitations. "This is not a legitimate offer by Wal-Mart and anyone receiving one of these calls should not agree to purchase and should not under any circumstances provide bank account or other personal information. Once a business has a consumer's bank account information, it can control the account. The business can make many withdrawals or simply empty the account before a consumer realizes it," cautioned the Attorney General.

In response to complaints, Attorney General Stenehjem's Consumer Protection Division investigated the Company and its affiliates. The investigation exposed the Companies' fraudulent practices and prompted him to issue the Cease and Desist Order prohibiting the Company from conducting business in North Dakota.

Violations of the order subject the business to civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation of the Order. The solicitations also are violations of the consumer fraud law and could result in civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation.

Consumers who are solicited by this business should contact the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 1-800-472-2600 (toll-free).

CRAFTMATIC ORGANIZATION: OH AG Files Second Consumer Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed earlier this month a second consumer protection lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Ohio against Craftmatic Organization, Inc., of Trevose, and J KAZ (doing business as Craftmatic of Pittsburgh), of Verona, both in Pennsylvania. The companies market and sell Craftmatic beds.

"Since we first sued them for preying on our most vulnerable citizens, our fact-finding turned up additional instances where Craftmatic broke the law," The Attorney General said. "We aim to put a stop to Craftmatic's illegal advertising and sales tactics in Ohio."

Attorney General Petro's first lawsuit, filed in the same court on December 29, 2003, said the Company violated Ohio consumer sales practices law in its use of high-pressure sales tactics, illegal pricing, and false advertising. Most of the victims were elderly with physical infirmities. Mr. Petro said that after the suit was filed, as his staff reviewed documents obtained from Craftmatic and conducted detailed consumer interviews, they discovered significant additional violations of the state Consumer Sales Practices Act and numerous violations of Ohio's Home Sales Solicitation Act.

DESIGNER SHOE: Ohio AG Petro Sues V. Breach of Customer Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro asked a court to order Ohio-based shoe retailer Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW, INC.) to individually notify each customer whose personal information may have been stolen recently from DSW computer files, in early June 2005. Ohio is the first state to sue the retailer over one of the biggest security breaches of its kind in the nation.

"DSW has acknowledged that a security breach led to the loss of more than one million customers' checking and credit information, yet the company has not individually notified each customer to warn them about this mishap," the Attorney General said. "As we have said repeatedly, we see no reason why DSW, working with the credit card companies and the underlying issuing banks, cannot arrange for direct notification of every affected consumer."

He said the consumers should be put on notice to more carefully review their accounts and take steps to ensure the safety of their accounts and personal information. As part of a lawsuit he filed against the Company in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Petro asked the court to order DSW to directly notify in writing approximately 700,000 customers affected by the security breach and to find that the company's failure to do so is a violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The Company, based in Columbus with retail stores in more than 30 states, including Ohio, reported in early March that computer files containing customers' personal information it retained from consumer transactions from mid-November 2004 to mid-February of this year had been stolen. The news prompted responses from Attorney General Petro admonishing the Company to notify all affected customers.

The stolen data included DSW customers' names, credit card numbers, debit card numbers, checking account numbers, and driver's license numbers - information the customers had provided to the Company in the course of nearly 1.5 million transactions at 108 stores in Ohio and elsewhere, according to the Attorney General's complaint. The complaint says the Company's failure to contact each customer is an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" in violation of section 1345.02(A) of the Ohio Revised Code.

Due to a wiring insulation defect, the unit may pose a possible shock hazard.

Only DeWALT D55143 three-gallon hand-carry oil free air compressors with the following date codes: 200448, 200453, 200502 through 200505, 200508, and 200509 are included in the recall. The date code is printed on the name plate on the rear air tank of the unit. Units marked with an "R" on the end cap of the unit are not included in this recall.

Manufactured in China, the compressors were sold at all home center and hardware stores nationwide from January 2005 through April 2005 for about $250.

Consumers should stop using the compressors immediately and contact DeWALT for the location of the nearest service center to receive a free inspection or repair if necessary.

DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Ditech Communications Corporation and certain of its officers face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from August 25,2004 to May 26,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its officers alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making misrepresentations regarding the Company's business condition. Specifically, Defendants represented that the Company had received two significant Voice Quality Assurance ("VQA") orders from new customers in Asia. The Company touted this as the first success in its efforts to enter the VQA market in a rapidly growing geographical area. In fact, the orders were not solidified. The purported customers were not obligated to, and, did not purchase the services.

Additionally, it is alleged that the Company misrepresented the impact of the merger between Sprint and Nextel. Given the fact that Nextel accounted for over 40% of the Company's revenues, certain securities analysts posited that the cost cutting and integration of Nextel and Sprint operations might result in less business for the Company. In response, defendants represented that the merger should not be of concern to Company investors and that it was "quite good" for the Company. In fact, as defendants knew the Nextel-Sprint merger posed a serious threat to the Company's business, one that could erase nearly half of its revenues.

While the price of Company shares was artificially inflated by defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, Company insiders sold a total of 320,000 of their personally held Company shares for gross proceeds of $6,715,650.

Investors began to learn the truth about the purported VQA orders on November 3, 2004, when the Company announced that the highly-touted orders had not shipped, causing the Company to miss its revenue goals for the second quarter of 2005 and calling into question the Company's VQA expansion plans. The price of Company common stock fell by 25.5% to $16.60 per share in response to the announcement, on unusually heavy trading volume. Defendants, however, maintained this was merely a "delay" and that they still expected the orders to ship, a claim that defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, was misleading.

The complaints further allege that the truth about the impact of the Nextel-Sprint merger on the Company was revealed after the close of trading on May 26, 2005. At that time, the Company announced that orders from Nextel dropped substantially as a result of the Nextel-Sprint merger and that a continuing decline in orders was expected. Although defendants did not directly address the issue in this release, the promised VQA sales to the two new customers from Asia still did not materialize, nearly a year after defendants supposedly "secured" the orders. In response to this announcement, Company common stock dropped by 38%, to $7.79 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Richard E. Jaffe, et al. v. Ditech Communications Corp., et al., case no. 05-CV-02406," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

DRDGOLD LIMITED: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------DRDGOLD Limited (formerly known as Durban Roodeport Deep, Limited) and certain of its present and former executive officers face several shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from October 23,2003 to February 24,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its present and former executive officers alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants made numerous statements regarding:

(1) the successful restructuring of the Company's North West Operations in South America;

(2) the Company's ability to reduce the negative impact of the increasing value of the South African Rand versus the U.S. Dollar; and

(3) the increasing strength of the Company's balance sheet

In truth, the Company's problems with its North West Operations were never fully resolved and resulted in the Company being forced to record an impairment charge for the full value of its mining assets there. Despite representations to the contrary, DRDGOLD continued to be negatively impacted by the increasing value of the South African Rand. Further, these problems resulted in the Company being forced to announce that it might not be able to operate as a going concern. When this information was belatedly disclosed to the public, shares of DRDGOLD fell more than 25%.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Noam Rand, et al. v. DRDGOLD Limited, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

EASTMAN KODAK: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in C.D. CA---------------------------------------------------------------Eastman Kodak Company and certain of its officers and directors face several shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from April 23,2003 to September 25,2003.

The suits allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the suits allege that the Company's financial guidance for the second quarter of 2003, first issued on April 23, 2003, was improper given undisclosed problems within the company.

On September 25, 2003, the Company announced that its then-existing business model had been failing throughout the Class Period and, as a result of operating difficulties, it would be forced cut its historic dividend by 72%. On this news, its stock price plummeted by 18% to an 18 year-low on September 25, 2003.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Herbert T. King, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NJ---------------------------------------------------------------Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its present and former executive officers and/or directors face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from November 16,2004 to May 17,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its present and former executive officers and/or directors alleging defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaints alleges that the Company, a producer and recycler of lead-acid batteries, was heavily dependent on financing to support its operations during the Class Period, having emerged from bankruptcy protection in May 2004. The Company had negotiated a $365 million senior secured credit facility which required the Company to comply with several financial covenants, including that the Company maintain a specified ratio of debt to equity (the "Leverage Ratio Covenant"), and that the Company maintain minimum consolidated earnings before income, taxes, depreciation, amortization ("EBITDA") (the "EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, with the Leverage Ratio Covenant, the "Covenants").

Throughout the Class Period, defendants represented that the Company could maintain compliance with the Covenants because, among other things, they had reorganized the Company's business, successfully implemented cost-savings measures and increased productivity. In addition, defendants stated that they had hedged against commodity price fluctuations, including the price of lead, which was the primary material used in the production of batteries.

On February 14, 2005, defendants revealed that the Company was in violation of the Leverage Ratio Covenant, however, assured investors, that Exide's lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant. Moreover, defendants emphasized that the Company was in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and that it was not at risk of defaulting on the credit facility.

The complaints further allege that the truth began to emerge on May 16, 2005. On that day, after the market closed, defendants issued a press release stating they expected Exide to violate the Covenants for the fiscal year-ended March 31, 2005 as a result of the "impact of commodity costs; the loss of overhead absorption due to an inventory-reduction initiative; other fourth-quarter inventory valuation adjustments; and costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance efforts." In reaction to this announcement, the price of Exide stock, which had closed at $11.15 per share on May 16, 2005, fell to an opening price of $5.75 per share the following trading day, representing a one-day decline of $5.40, or 48%, and closed out the day at $6.88 per share on extremely heavy volume of over nine million shares, 50 times the daily average volume.

On May 17, 2005, after the market closed, defendant Gargaro made the following additional shocking revelations:

(1) the Company expected to report adjusted EBITDA of $100 million to $107 million for the full-year 2005, and therefore, failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA Covenant which required minimum EBITDA of $130 million;

(2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," including write-offs of obsolete and discontinued products, had resulted in a reduction of earnings of between $15 million and $20 million;

(3) the Company lacked the ability to properly forecast its inventory requirements; and

(4) the Company had violated the terms of a contract with a large customer and, consequently, was required to record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million.

In reaction to this news, the price of Exide shares fell another $1.55, or 22 %, from their closing price of $6.88 on May 17, 2005, to close at $5.33 on May 18, 2005. Defendants were motivated to commit the fraud alleged herein so that Exide could complete a $350 million private placement of senior notes and floating rate convertible senior subordinated notes.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Aviva Partners LLC, et al. v. Exide Technologies, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

The suspension assembly can crack causing the rider to lose control of the go-kart. The manufacturer has received five reports of the suspension assembly cracking and causing the rider to lose control, including reports of bruises and head and back injuries.

This recall involves one- and two-seater model Yerf-Dog Spiderbox series go-karts. The go-karts have full suspension and 150cc engines. Date codes and model numbers are located on a plate attached to the engine casing. Date codes and model numbers included in this recall are:

Model = Date Codes 3206 = July 20, 2004 through March 4, 2005 4209 = July 20, 2004 through February 18, 2005 42092 = July 20, 2004 through November 22, 2004 42093 = August 9, 2004 through November 19, 2004 42101 = July 28, 2004 through October 12, 2004

Manufactured in the United States, the Go-Karts were sold at all Yerf-Dog dealers nationwide from July 2004 through May 2005 for between $1,500 and $1,800.

Consumers should stop using the recalled go-karts immediately and contact FF Acquisition Wheeled Goods for repair information. Registered owners will be notified directly about the recall.

These travel trailers have unsupported fresh water and holding tanks. The tanks require straps in order to prevent them from separating from the travel trailer. If the tank fell off while the travel trailer is in motion, damage to following vehicles could occur, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect and install support straps underneath the fresh water and holding tanks. The recall is expected to begin on July 12,2005. For more details contact the Company by Phone: 800-509-3418 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

According to authorities, John Gill preyed on mostly cash-strapped military personnel and charged them anywhere from 540 to 11,000 percent interest in exchange for Internet time. Lynn Drysdale, a consumer attorney for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., which filed the lawsuit told News4Jax.com, "I cannot think of a worse scam that we have seen in this community," said.

In additional, Ms. Drysdale told News4Jax.com that Mr. Gill, owner of Florida Internet, used his business as a way to illegally issue loans and steal money from unsuspecting customers. Consumers would sign a contract for Internet time and give Gill a post-dated or voided check. In return, the business would hand over a rebate subtracting the cost for using the Internet. She further explains, "The only thing that he really needed was the routing number off the bottom of the check. Because with that, he could automatically withdraw the money from your account without notice."

Investigators stated that Mr. Gill would give customers two weeks to repay the loan in full. If they did not, he would charge an inflated interest that fluctuated indefinitely until all the money could be repaid. However, according to Ms. Drysdale that was not all. She told News4Jax.com, "If you signed the contract, only $60 was required, but then he would throw in bounced check fees and late fees and all sorts of things."

Police records revealed that this was not the first time Mr. Gill has been in trouble with the law. In 1998, according to the records, he signed an agreement with the state attorney's office in Escambia County that prohibited him from doing any more business in Florida. Also, he was banned from conducting business in New York, Georgia and North Carolina.

The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office asks that victims of this scam contact them or the Jacksonville Area Legal Aid at (904) 356-8371, ext. 306.

FORD MOTOR: Appellate Court Decertifies FL Suit Over Police Cars----------------------------------------------------------------A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge's ruling that would have expanded a Florida Panhandle sheriff's lawsuit over the safety of Ford patrol cars to include police agencies throughout the state, The Associated Press reports.

Unanimously decertifying the case as a class action, the appellate court ruled that Circuit Judge G. Robert Barron failed to make findings of fact as required by procedural rules. The panel wrote, "Absent specific findings, we cannot discern whether the trial court applied the correct analysis when making its decision."

Okaloosa County Sheriff Charlie Morris contends Crown Victoria Police Interceptors made by Ford Motor Co. are unsafe because several of the cars have exploded in flames when hit from behind. It is among a series of similar lawsuits across the nation. The Company contends the car is safe even earning the federal government's highest crash rating.

In a news release from Company headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, Doug Lampe, one of the Company's lawyers, hailed the ruling as a victory that will allow continued sales to Florida police departments. He also stated in the release, "Ford knew from working closely with Florida law enforcement agencies that the officers themselves believe in the Police Interceptor and had very little interest in joining this litigation."

Despite the lawsuit Mr. Morris tried to buy more cars from Ford, but the Company refused to sell to his department in July 2003, a year after he sued. Judge Barron rejected a request by Mr. Morris to force Ford to sell cars to him.

As a final note, the statement from Ford, also pointed out, "Ford is committed to making a safe car even safer, but courtroom engineering is not the answer. To improve officer safety in traffic stops requires a focus on the root problem: drunk driving."

These sport utility vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 135, "passenger car brake systems." To meet the standard, the vehicle must not move for five minutes when stopped on a steep hill with the parking brake applied and the vehicle in neutral (N). Some of these vehicles failed this test.

When the parking brake is released, the driver may notice unintended braking when accelerating, decelerating or coasting and a noise coming from the rear of the vehicle. Unintended vehicle movement could occur increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect for parking brake lever slippage at each rear brake caliper and replace the caliper if lever slippage is identified. The recall is expected to begin during September 2005. For more details, contact Buick by Phone: 1-866-608-8080, Chevrolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438, Pontiac by Phone: 1-800-620-7668, or Saturn by Phone: 1-800-972-8876, or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

Guidant, which has been in acquisition talks with pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, has recalled the VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR (Model 1861), the CONTAK RENEWAL (Models H135 and H155) and the VENTAK PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT, and RENEWAL 4 AVT ICDs after the devices failed to work properly.

According to Guidant's press release of June 17, 2005, the PRIZM 2 model has had 28 reports of failure and one death in 26,000 devices built before April 2002. The CONTAK model has 15 reports of failure and one death in 16,000 devices built before August of 2004. Both models have a flaw that causes a short circuit, preventing the defibrillator from delivering a shock to a heart in fibrillation.

The VENTAK PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT, and RENEWAL 4 AVT ICDs have a memory error causing two confirmed malfunctions in 21,000 implants. The memory error requires the devices to be reprogrammed.

Guidant has already come under scrutiny for failing to tell doctors and patients for three years about a flaw in the VENTAK PRIZM 2 Model 1861 that could cause a short-circuit. While Guidant informed the FDA of the malfunction in its August 2003 annual report, it has been asserted that the company made no move to alert doctors or heart patients of the malfunction until after it was told that the New York Times was preparing an article on May 23, 2005 about the faulty devices.

Patients who have been implanted with the flawed devices now face difficult medical and emotional choices, since the faulty defibrillators most likely require replacement. Defibrillator patients will be forced to undergo dangerous cardiac surgery or cope with the stress and mental anguish of not knowing if their defibrillator might malfunction at a critical moment. They must also contend with lost wages, medical bills, and rehabilitative expenses following replacement surgery.

These tandem axle enclosed trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under, may have defective ball couplers (Manufacturing Date of N0315) which could fail in certain situations. Should the coupler fail, the trailer may disconnect from the towing vehicle, which could result in a crash.

Owners should inspect the coupler to see if the date code is NO315. Haulmakr will arrange for the completion of the necessary repairs without charge. The recall is expected to begin during June or July 2005. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-866-393-6053 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

HYTRIN LITIGATION: SD Consumers To Receive Share in Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription medication Hytrin are eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million nationwide settlement agreement, South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long announced in a statement earlier this month. The refunds to consumers and third-party payers in 18 states will be paid by two companies who, the complaint alleged, had conspired to engage in anticompetitive conduct that delayed the availability of a more affordable generic version of the medication.

Hytrin, which is used in the treatment of hypertension and enlarged prostate, is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, and the generic version (called "terazosin") is produced by Geneva Pharmaceuticals. According to a federal lawsuit, Abbott wrongfully paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic version of Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from lower-priced generic versions of its product. This illegal activity harmed consumers.

Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to final court approval, Abbott and Geneva would provide $28.7 million for consumers and third-party payers in South Dakota and 17 other states. The most direct way for consumers to obtain claims forms is through the settlement website: http://www.terazosinlitigation.com.Claims forms must be mailed to the settlement administrator no later than July 15, 2005.

The settlement will benefit consumers who purchased terazosin products between October 15, 1995, and March 7, 2005, and amounts of refunds will depend on how many consumers file claims against the settlement fund. The settlement applies to consumers and third-party payers in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Between 1999 and 2001, a number of consumers filed lawsuits against Abbott and Geneva. The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. After conducting their own investigations, the states of Florida, Kansas and Colorado filed their own lawsuit in the same court. The settlement establishes a separate $2 million fund to reimburse state agency claims and litigation costs incurred by Florida, Kansas and Colorado.

HYTRIN LITIGATION: ND Consumers to Receive Antitrust Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription medication Hytrin may be eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million nationwide settlement agreement, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem announced in a statement earlier this month.

Hytrin is used in the treatment of hypertension and enlarged prostate. According to a federal lawsuit, Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures Hytrin, paid Geneva Pharmaceuticals to delay introduction of its generic version of the drug. Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to final court approval, Abbott and Geneva will pay $28.7 million for consumers and third-party payers in North Dakota and 17 other states.

Consumers who purchased terazosin products between October 15, 1995, and March 7, 2005 may request a refund. The refund amount will depend on how many consumers file claims against the settlement fund. Consumers can obtain claim forms from the settlement website at: http://www.terazosinlitigation.com;by calling the settlement administrator toll-free at 1-877-886-0283; or by writing to the settlement administrator at:In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24607, West Palm Beach, FL 33416. Claims forms must be mailed to the settlement administrator's address no later than July 15, 2005.

The settlement applies to consumers and third-party payers in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

INDIANA: Disappointed Formula One Fan Lodges Compensation Claim---------------------------------------------------------------Formula One fan, Larry Bowers initiated a class action suit following the debacle at the recent United States Grand Prix in Indianapolis, Indiana when 14 out of 20 cars refused to race, The Malaysia Star reports.

The Colorado resident with aid from his lawyer William Bock III are seeking for compensation from the motor sport's governing body FIA, the Formula One Administration (FOA), tire manufacturer Michelin as well as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, accusing them of "fraud".

According to Mr. Bowers suit, only six of 20 cars--those using Bridgestone tires instead of Michelin--took part in the race, which was won by Ferrari's Michael Schumacher ahead of teammate Rubens Barrichello. Michelin had told its partners that racing was unsafe after it failed to find out what caused two crashes during practice last week.

In light of the fiasco, FIA President, Max Mosley, has called for monetary compensation for the over 100,000 fans who paid around $100 entrance to watch the race. Quoted by the British media, he said, "I think that Michelin and the seven teams should compensate the spectators. With their refusal to take part in the race, they have damaged the sport and themselves."

Even Formula One superstar Bernie Ecclestone criticized Michelin, calling the tiremaker "stupid" for not having tires capable of surviving a race at Indianapolis.

However, former world champion Nigel Mansell told the Daily Mail that Michelin was to be commended for the decision saying, "You cannot blame Michelin. I thought it was very brave of them to declare their concern over the integrity of their product and advise the teams."

Filed in January 2005 in the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas on behalf of lead plaintiff, Thomas Becnel, and all other OPIS and BLIPS participants, the strength of the case was highlighted with KPMG's recent and very public admission that it engaged in "unlawful conduct" that seriously harmed KPMG's clients.

KPMG and the other defendants collected tens of millions of dollars in fees from the OPIS and BLIPS schemes, even though, as the complaint alleges, defendants knew they were abusive tax shelters that lacked any economic substance and were highly unlikely to be approved by the IRS. Indeed, while defendants targeted and marketed OPIS and BLIPS to Becnel and each class member as legitimate transactions that would produce financial gain or lawful tax losses to minimize tax liability, the truth began to come to light only after the U.S. Senate investigated the schemes and revealed the illegal nature of these products.

Thomas Becnel, speaking on behalf of himself and fellow class members from his home in Destin, Florida, said: "We relied on defendants' representations that these products were legitimate and have been subjected to millions of dollars in damages because they were not."

"As a businessman, this is not the type of behavior I expect from my professional advisors, especially when they are as seemingly well-respected as KPMG, Presidio, Deutsche Bank, and Sidley Austin," Mr. Becnel added.

In addition to the Senate's investigation, KPMG has been under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury in New York for more than a year, because of its consultation on and involvement in abusive tax shelters from 1996 to 2002. Concern that prosecutors might be close to issuing an indictment sparked fears that the firm might implode and is largely considered to have been the catalyst for KPMG's public admission of guilt.

"While KPMG may or may not be indicted, we intend to press very hard to recover the class's damages on an expedited basis and to seek punitive damages given the egregiousness of defendants' actions," according to BLBG partner Jerry Silk. This class action is the device available to OPIS and BLIPs participants to recover damages without bringing their own lawsuit.

MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA----------------------------------------------------------------Magma Design Automation, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from October 23,2002 to April 12,2005.

The suits allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the Company faced the serious risk of infringing on intellectual property rights of competitor Synopsys because inventions that were critical to the Company's business, and which were patented by the Company, were designed by its chief scientist while employed by Synopsys. Defendants aggressively denounced the allegations, characterizing them as completely baseless. While the Company's stock price was artificially inflated, insiders sold 4,436,163 shares of common stock reaping gross proceeds of $82,385,174.

The complaints further allege that on or around April 13, 2005, the market learned that the Company's Chief Scientist admitted, in a sworn declaration filed in the Synopsys infringement action, that inventions covered by two of the Company's patents were conceived by him while he was employed by Synopsys and that his supervisor at the Company, and likely others, knew that the inventions covered by the patents were conceived by him at Synopsis and were encompassed by an agreement with Synopsis granting Synopsis the rights to those inventions. On this news, Company stock plummeted 40.7%, from $9.42 per share on April 12, 2005 to $5.58 per share on April 13, 2005.

Also included are all those who acquired Company shares through its acquisitions of Majave, Random Logic, Aplus Design or Silicon Metrics.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, et al. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-02394," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: WI AG Bares Warning On Security Breach----------------------------------------------------------------Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager issued a consumer alert warning Wisconsin credit card holders that their account information may have been compromised in what appears to be the largest security breach reported yet -- this time reported by MasterCard.

"To protect against theft, all credit card holders -- especially MasterCard card holders -- should thoroughly scrutinize their monthly statements for fraudulent transactions," Attorney General Lutenschlager said. "If any unauthorized charges are found, the cardholder should immediately stop using the credit card and contact the financial institution that issued the card."

On Friday, MasterCard International, Inc., reported a massive computer system breach that took place at the Atlanta-based credit card processing company, CardSystems Solutions. The breach occurred when consumer records stored in the credit card processing company's computer system were penetrated by data thieves. As many as 40 million accounts with major credit card companies were exposed in the incident, although it is not clear how many of the exposed account numbers were actually stolen. CardSystems Solutions' chief executive, John M. Perry, acknowledged Sunday that under rules established by Visa and MasterCard, the processing company should not have retained the records that were exposed.

A spokesperson for MasterCard stated the Company immediately notified customer banks of specific card accounts that may have been subject to compromise so they can watch for fraud.

CardSystems Solutions processes transactions with various credit card companies including Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and MBNA. So far only MasterCard knows of specific instances of fraud as a result of the security breach. It reported that as many as 13.9 million MasterCard accounts had been exposed to possible fraud. This incident is just the latest in a series of reported security breaches including Citigroup, ChoicePoint, DSW Shoe Warehouse and LexisNexis.

Attorney General Lautenschlager said the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) will follow the same steps taken with previous incidents by contacting CardSystems Solutions and MasterCard and requesting information regarding any Wisconsin consumers that could have been affected by the breach. She will also demand the companies contact these consumers immediately.

For more information contact the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Consumer Protection by Phone: 608-266-1852 or 1-800-998-0700, and the Wisconsin Department of Justice - Division of Criminal Investigation, by Phone: 608-266-1671.

NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MN----------------------------------------------------------------Navarre Corporation and certain of its officers face several shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from July 23,2003 to May 31,2005.

The suits allege that throughout the Class Period, the Company and certain of its officers reported quarter after quarter of record results that were purportedly achieved by successful execution of the Company's strategy. As particularized in the complaint, defendants' class period representations concerning the Company's financial results and its business were materially false and misleading for the following reasons:

(4) The certifications signed by defendants, the Company's CEO and CFO, in Navarre's SEC filings, attesting to the accuracy of the financial results included therein, were false because the financial results were artificially inflated through improper accounting;

(5) during the third fiscal quarter of 2005, Navarre improperly recognized millions in deferred tax benefits as income; and

(6) Navarre was experiencing a significant slowdown in demand for its anti-virus software products that was materially and negatively impacting its overall business.

On May 31, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing that it would postpone release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2005 results pending an accounting review focused on the recognition of deferred compensation expense for payments made to one of the defendants, the Company's CEO, and the classification of fiscal 2005 tax items. In response to this announcement, the price of Navarre common stock dropped from $9.00 per share on May 31, 2005 to $8.02 per share on June 1, 2005, a one-day drop of 10.8% on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaints further allege that defendants were motivated to commit the wrongdoing alleged therein so that Navarre insiders, including the Company's CEO and CFO, could sell their personally held Navarre shares at artificially inflated prices. During the Class Period, insiders sold a total of 1,269,000 shares, for total proceeds of $16,183,254.58.

The first identified class action in the litigation is styled "Aviva Partners, LLC, et al. v. Navarre Corp., et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

NEBRASKA: Magistrate Recommends Gutting of Disabilities' Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Magistrate David Piester of Lincoln, Nebraska recommended that a lawsuit, which claims Nebraskans with developmental disabilities are in danger of being institutionalized because the state isn't fully funding programs for them, should not be deemed a class action, the Sioux City Journal reports.

That decision by the federal magistrate had the effect of virtually precluding more than 1,400 developmentally disabled people from joining the action and also limited the case to the seven people who filed the lawsuit.

Judge Piester, whose recommendation now goes to U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf for consideration, said it was nearly impossible to certify the class. In his recommendation the magistrate wrote, "The ... proposed class is broadly defined to include all present and future individuals with developmental disabilities in Nebraska ... who are not receiving services due to insufficient funding."

In addition he also wrote, "Since highly case-specific circumstances apply to each disabled person, I cannot conclude that the claims of the seven named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the over 1,400 persons they propose to represent. Since the proposed class is so amorphous and diverse, it cannot be reasonably clear that the proposed class members have all suffered a constitutional or statutory violation warranting some relief."

The 2003 lawsuit was filed by Nebraska Advocacy Services, which had claimed that the state is failing to meet its programming obligations in violation of federal Medicaid law and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Its plaintiffs are seeking home- and community-based services available through the state's Home and Community Based Waiver Program. Services under the program include in-home care and community programs, such as vocational training, workshops and group homes.

According to the suit, the state has "unlawfully restricted funding" to the program, resulting in long waits for often inadequate services. The suit argues that waiver programs are optional under federal law, but states that choose to have them must operate them by Medicaid rules. They are funded with state money and matching federal Medicaid dollars, it adds.

The suit also states that due to the backlog, some developmentally disabled people are put at greater risk of being institutionalized because their families can't care for them.

Nebraska Advocacy lawyer Bruce Mason told Sioux City Journal that his office is studying whether to file an objection to the recommendation. He also stated that 73 other people have been identified who could join the lawsuit.

NEWMONT MINING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CO----------------------------------------------------------------Newmont Mining Corporation and certain of its officers and directors face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from July 28,2004 to April 26,2005.

According to a press release dated June 8, 2005, the complaints charge the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company is a gold producer with assets or operations in the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Canada, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, New Zealand, Ghana and Mexico.

Specifically, the complaints allege that despite making repeated positive statements about the Company's operations and financial expectations throughout the Class Period, defendants announced on April 26, 2005 that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company's Peruvian, Indonesian, Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On this news, its stock price fell precipitously from its April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than $38 per share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading volume. Meanwhile, because the Company's stock had traded at inflated prices throughout the Class Period, the Company was able to place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005, just weeks before the truth about the Company's operational and financial difficulties would be disclosed.

According to the complaints, the facts, known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

(2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had increased, increasing total production costs and cash production costs;

(3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could extract in 2005 was overstated; and

(4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005, Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its exploration costs would significantly increase.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint Pension, et al. v. Newmont Mining Corporation, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

OCA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. LA---------------------------------------------------------------OCA, Inc. and certain of its officers face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 18,2005 to June 7,2005.

The suits allege that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaints allege that certain of defendants' public statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading because

(1) defendants engaged in improper accounting practices (OCA, which has not yet filed its annual report for 2004, has announced that it will restate its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004);

(3) certain data provided to OCA's accounting firm had been improperly changed; and

(4) OCA could not ascertain its true financial condition because it lacked adequate internal controls.

As a result, OCA's patient receivables and patient revenue from its affiliated orthodontic and pediatric dental practices were materially overstated. The complaints further allege that on or around June 7, 2005, the Company announced that:

(i) it was further delaying the filing of its annual report;

(ii) it intends to restate its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004; and

(iii) its Chief Operating Officer had been placed on administrative leave.

After this announcement, the stock plummeted over 38%.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Bruce Simon, et al. v. OCA, Inc., et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

PATHMARK STORES: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in DE----------------------------------------------------------------Pathmark Stores, Inc. and its board of directors face a shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, styled "Rick Hartman, et al. v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-0403." The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 6,2005 to June 9,2005.

According to a press release dated June 16, 2005, the complaint charges that the Company and is board of directors provided materially misleading information to shareholders in connection with a Proxy Solicitation seeking shareholder approval of an investment in the Company by Yucaipa Partners, LLC. The proxy solicitation was misleading because it failed to inform investors of an alternative cash-out transaction, through which all Pathmark shareholders would receive $8.75 per share, that had been presented to Pathmark's Board of Directors on June 1. This alternative offer represented a greater value than the Yucaipa Transaction the Board was recommending. The Complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating with Yucaipa by continuing to recommend that shareholders approve the Yucaipa Transaction even after the alternative offer had been made.

The FTC alleged that the companies' ads did not give consumers important information about how the book clubs operated, which consumers needed to know before joining them. Consumers who did not know how the clubs operated complained that the companies sent them books they did not order, and that the companies would not cancel their club memberships. The consent decree the companies signed to settle these allegations requires full disclosure of membership terms, and requires them to pay a $710,000 civil penalty. The complaint and consent decree settling the Commission's charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Department of Justice on the FTC's behalf.

"There's a message in this order for any business that runs a negative-option club," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Your company is responsible for letting potential customers know the rules that come with their membership before they enroll."

The Company describes itself as the largest publisher and distributor of children's books in the world. It distributes its books through a variety of channels, including school-based book clubs and fairs, stores, and television networks. With its June 2000 acquisition of Grolier, the Company also distributes its books through direct-to-home book clubs. Grolier is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and is under a 1994 district court FTC order that required Grolier to pay a $200,000 civil penalty and prohibited it and its successors from violating the FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute. SAH, which bills consumers, collects unpaid balances, and handles consumer questions and complaints, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Grolier. The complaint resolves all the FTC's charges against the defendants, which involved their direct-to-home book clubs.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the companies' direct mail and telemarketing campaigns offered consumers two related book clubs that operated on different terms that were not fully disclosed.

The first club - which the complaint identifies as the base book club - offered consumers the opportunity to inspect a pair of books and automatically enrolled consumers in the club if they kept the books beyond a set preview period and paid for them. This first club had a minimum purchase obligation of four books, and shipped books automatically to consumers each month.

If consumers made two purchases from the first club, the defendants automatically enrolled them in a second club. This second club - which the complaint identifies as a supplemental plan - had no minimum purchase obligation and did not send books automatically each month. Instead, three or four times each year, it sent consumers a notice telling them that the club would send them books described in the notice unless they wrote "cancel" on the notice and returned it. This notice makes the second club a prenotification negative option plan under the FTC's Prenotification Negative Option Rule.

The defendants' advertising and telemarketing scripts did not adequately distinguish the two book clubs or tell consumers that they were indeed two completely separate clubs. The advertising and scripts did not tell consumers that they would have to reject merchandise offered by the second club by returning a notice, that purchasing a book offered by the second club did not count toward the minimum purchase obligation of the first club, or that cancelling one club did not cancel the other.

The FTC's complaint against the Company, Grolier, and SAH contains five counts relating to their marketing and sale of books through direct-to-home negative option clubs.

Count I alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, or to disclose adequately, before consumers were automatically enrolled, the material terms and obligations of the supplemental book club plans, in violation of the FTC Act. Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with failing to disclose:

(1) what consumers had to do to avoid receiving and having to pay for supplemental plan shipments;

(2) that buying the supplemental plan shipments did not count toward the minimum required purchases for the base book club; and

(3) that cancelling their enrollment in the basic club did not cancel their enrollment in the supplemental plan.

Count II alleges that the defendants shipped unordered merchandise to consumers and sent them communications seeking payment for the merchandise when the defendants had actual knowledge that the FTC had previously determined that such practices are unfair and deceptive under the FTC Act.

Count III alleges that the defendants' shipment of unordered merchandise and sending of communications seeking payment for it also violated the Unordered Merchandise Statute.

Count IV alleges that the defendants failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously all the material terms of the supplemental book plans, as required by the FTC's Prenotification Negative Option Rule.

Count V alleges that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by failing to disclose all of the material terms of the supplemental club's negative option features during telemarketing sales calls.

The consent order settling the Commission's charges enjoins the defendants from making negative option sales pitches without disclosing all material terms and conditions of the offers. It also prohibits them from misrepresenting any material terms or conditions of a negative option feature, and requires them to obtain consumers' consent to participate in any negative option plan after all such terms and conditions have been disclosed. The order further bars the defendants from shipping unordered merchandise or seeking payment for it in violation of the FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute, and from violating the Prenotification Negative Option Rule and the TSR.

The order also requires the defendants to pay a $710,000 civil penalty for their alleged violations of the Prenotification Negative Option Rule, the TSR, and for engaging in practices relating to unordered merchandise that the FTC has previously determined to be unfair and deceptive.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the consent in settlement of the court action was 5-0. The complaint and consent were filed by the Department of Justice on the Commission's behalf on June 21, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The proposed consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. Such orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the Commission's complaint and consent agreement are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact James Reilly Dolan, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3292, or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/scholastic.htm.

SETTON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites---------------------------------------------------------------- Setton International Foods, Inc., 85 Austin Blvd., Commack, NY 11725 is recalling Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins are packed in 30-pound cardboard boxes, coded 5103D. The product was sold in the Long Island New York Metropolitan area.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins that did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-CASHEWS (1-800-227-4397).

On these motor homes, the I-shaft is the mechanical linkage between the steering wheel and the steering gear. At the non-welded side of the I-shaft there is a universal joint. It is possible that the fork shaft connection could be lost. Drivers will lose steerability of the vehicle and a crash could occur without prior warning.

Dealers will inspect and repair the I-shaft. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this recall. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 517-543-6400 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

STATE FARM: Judge to Hold Hearing For Insurance Policy Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Madison County Circuit Judge Philip Kardis is preparing to hold a class certification hearing on a case that was filed in June 2002 against State Farm Insurance on June 27 at 9:30 a.m. in his Granite City courtroom, The Madison County Record reports.

Cynthia Hoffman, who is represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery in St. Louis, alleges that State Farm refused to issue or renew insurance policies solely on the basis of a credit report. She is claiming that the refusal violates the Illinois Insurance Code, which has prohibited insurance companies from refusing to issue or renew an insurance policy based solely on a credit report since October 2002.

Court documents revealed that Ms. Hoffman, a State Farm policyholder from August 1997 until January 2002, renewed her lapsed policy on March 2002, paying a six-month premium of $528.76. State Farm had canceled the policy, stating coverage was denied "based upon an insurance underwriting score developed from credit and automobile insurance claim information." She claims however, that due to the cancellation, she was forced to pay $1,722 for a substitute policy from another insurance carrier.

The class action seeks damages for the excessive premium payments the class was required to pay based on State Farm's alleged violation of the insurance code plus all attorney fees and court costs, plus interest.

According to the suit, all Illinois residents who have been denied issuance or renewal of an insurance policy solely on the basis of a credit report since October 2001 are eligible to join the class.

The suit is styled, Cynthia Hoffman v. State Farm Insurance, which filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois. Stephen Tillery of the law firm of Korein Tillery represents the plaintiff, Cynthia Hoffman. The defendant, State Farm, is represented by the Belleville law firm of Donovan, Rose, Nester & Joley.

The treestand's bracket can bend if not secured properly by a chain and if weight is applied. This can cause the chain to disengage from the stand, the stand to separate from the tree and the user to fall and suffer serious injuries. Tahsin received one report in which a person fell from an unknown elevation while using the treestand.

The recalled treestands are the Ameristep Model 9203 Hang-on of the Grizzly Treestand Line. The product is a steel fixed-position treestand that uses a steel chain for attachment to trees and has a camouflage-covered seat.

Manufactured in China, the treestands were sold at all Kame's Sports Center, Kentucky Lake Outdoors, Sportsmen Center, and North Sylva Company stores nationwide from July 2004 through June 2005 for between $36 and $50.

Consumers should stop using the treestand immediately and contact Ameristep Customer Service or any of the retailers to receive information on properly setting up the unit.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Carrier Access Corporation. It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

CONAGRA FOODS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NE----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of purchasers of ConAgra Foods, Inc. ("ConAgra") (NYSE:CAG) common stock during the period between September 18, 2003 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ConAgra and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ConAgra is a packaged food company serving a wide variety of food customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and issued false and misleading financial statements. On March 24, 2005, the Company announced it would be restating its financial statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half of fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting for income taxes. ConAgra stock fell to around $26 per share on this news. Then, on June 7, 2005, the Company announced that its fiscal 2005 fourth quarter would be lower than expected primarily due to continued weak profitability in the packaged meats operations. On this news the stock fell further to $24.32 per share.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false statements, ConAgra's stock traded at inflated levels as high as $30 per share during the Class Period, which allowed its top officers to reap tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses. The facts, concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, included the following:

(1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported results were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts;

(2) contrary to defendants' claims of fourth quarter 2005 and/or fiscal year 2005 profitability, the Company was actually on track to report losses;

(3) the Company's income was overstated due to improper tax accounting; and

(4) as a result of the above, the Company's projections for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

CYBERONICS INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Emerson Poynter, LLP, initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:05-cv-02121) on behalf of the purchasers of Cyberonics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYBX) securities during the Class Period between June 15, 2004, through October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class").

Cyberonics engages in the design, development, and commercialization of medical devices, which claim to provide therapy, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), for the treatment of epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and psychiatric disorders. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the Class Period, by failing to disclose and misrepresenting material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including that defendants were engaged in serious violative manufacturing and quality practices that would have a serious negative impact on prospects for the Company's VNC product approval and that, while well aware of true nature of the serious issues facing FDA approval of the VNC system for the depression indication, Company insiders sold over $1.98 million of Company stock during the Class Period. As a result, the Complaint alleges, the value of the Company's stock was materially and artificially inflated during the Class Period.

DRDGOLD LIMITED: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NY--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of DRDGOLD Limited ("DRDGOLD") (Nasdaq:DROOY), formerly known as Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited, securities during the period between October 23, 2003 and February 24, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DRDGOLD and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DRDGOLD is a gold exploration and mining company. The Company operates gold mines through its South African and Australasian operations.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous statements regarding:

(1) the successful restructuring of the Company's North West Operations in South America;

(2) the Company's ability to reduce the negative impact of the increasing value of the South African Rand versus the U.S. dollar; and

(3) the increasing strength of the Company's balance sheet.

In truth and in fact, the Company's problems with its North West Operations were never fully resolved and resulted in the Company being forced to record an impairment charge for the full value of its mining assets there. Moreover, despite representations to the contrary, the Company continued to be negatively impacted by the increasing value of the South African Rand. As detailed in the complaint, these problems resulted in the Company being forced to announce that it might not be able to operate as a going concern. When this information was belatedly disclosed to the public, shares of DRDGOLD fell more than 25%, on extraordinarily heavy volume.

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Exide Technologies ("Exide") (NASDAQ: XIDE) between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Exide violated federal securities laws. Under a $365 million senior secured credit facility, Exide was required to maintain a specified ratio of debt to equity ("Leverage Ratio Covenant"), and to maintain minimum consolidated earnings before income, taxes, depreciation, amortization ("EBITDA") ("EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, the "Covenants"). Defendants represented that Exide could maintain compliance with the Covenants; however, on February 14, 2005, defendants revealed that Exide was in violation of the Leverage Ratio Covenant. Defendants assured investors that Exide's lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant and emphasized that Exide was in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and was not at risk of default.

On May 17, 2005, defendants announced that:

(1) Exide failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA Covenant;

(2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," had resulted in a reduction of earnings;

(3) Exide was unable to properly forecast its inventory requirements; and

(4) because Exide had violated a contract, it was required to record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.

LAZARD LTD.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Lazard Ltd. ("Lazard" of the "Company") (NYSE: LAZ) publicly-traded securities who purchased such securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering of Lazard shares (the "IPO"), together with those who purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lazard is a financial advisory and asset management firm. The complaint alleges that Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co ("Goldman") (the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection with the Company's IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the Company's stock price after the stock began to trade on the open market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things, that:

(1) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO was to enable defendant Bruce Wasserstein (the Company's Chief Executive Officer) to raise sufficient funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David Weill ("David Weill"), a cousin of the Company's founders;

(2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;

(3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge funds with side agreements that they could immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would immediately buy them back;

(4) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to describe "the various factors considered in determining the offering price" when common shares without an established public trading market are being registered; and

(5) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that Gerardo Braggiotti, the Company's deputy Chairman in Europe and a major rainmaker of new business for the Company, who had only supported the IPO because of a promise (which was later reneged on) that he would be appointed as head of Lazard's European operations, was likely to leave Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the organization as he opposed the IPO and opposed defendant Wasserstein's purchase of David Weill's shares.

On May 12, 2005, only days after the IPO, and right after Goldman stopped buying back the Company's shares, the price of the Company's shares plunged from $25 per share to less than $21 per share.

NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Stock Suit in MN--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. announces that it filed class action lawsuit on Monday, June 13 on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May 31, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against defendants Navarre, Eric H. Paulson (CEO, President, Chairman) and James Gilbertson (CFO). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants reported quarter after quarter of record results that were purportedly achieved by successful execution of the Company's business strategy. As particularized in the complaint, defendants' class period representations concerning the Company's financial results and its business were materially false and misleading for these reasons:

(4) The certifications signed by defendants Paulson and Gilbertson in Navarre's SEC filings, attesting to the accuracy of the financial results included therein, were false because the financial results were artificially inflated through improper accounting;

(5) during the third fiscal quarter of 2005, Navarre improperly recognized millions in deferred tax benefits as income; and

(6) Navarre was experiencing a significant slowdown in demand for its anti-virus software products that was materially and negatively impacting its overall business.

On May 31, 2005, Navarre issued a press release announcing that it would postpone release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2005 results pending an accounting review focused on the recognition of deferred compensation expense for payments made to defendant Paulson and the classification of fiscal 2005 tax items. In response to this announcement, the price of Navarre common stock dropped from $9.00 per share on May 31, 2005 to $8.02 per share on June 1, 2005, a one-day drop of 10.8% on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to commit the wrongdoing alleged therein so that Navarre insiders, including defendants Paulson and Gilbertson, could sell their personally held Navarre shares at artificially inflated prices. During the Class Period, insiders sold a total of 1,269,000 shares, for total proceeds of $16,183,254.58.

NAVARRE CORPORATION: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Suit in MN--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:NAVR) common stock during the period between January 21, 2004 and February 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Navarre and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Navarre engages in the publication and distribution of various home entertainment and multimedia products, including personal computer software, audio and video titles, and interactive games.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. On January 10, 2005, Navarre announced the acquisition of FUNimation for $100 million in cash and between 1.495 million and 1.827 million shares of Navarre stock. After this announcement, Navarre's stock reached its Class Period high of $18.77 per share. Defendants took advantage of the inflation in Navarre's stock during the Class Period, selling 994,362 shares of Navarre stock for proceeds of $13.8 million.

On January 18, 2005, Navarre filed a registration statement with the SEC to raise up to $140 million through the sale of its common stock to fund the acquisition of FUNimation. On January 26, 2005, Navarre reported favorable third quarter fiscal 2005 results, which defendants said reflected "the continuing execution of our strategic plan." Then, on February 22, 2005, the Company suddenly withdrew its Registration Statement initially filed for the purpose of funding its acquisition of FUNimation. According to the complaint, this sudden withdrawal reignited rumors that the Company's accounting was problematic. On this news, the stock dropped to below $7 per share. Later, the Company announced that it would have to postpone the release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2005 financial results and that it was reviewing the recognition and classification of certain fiscal 2005 tax items.

NEWMONT MINING: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class ("Class") consisting of all persons who purchased securities of Newmont Mining Corporation ("Newmont" or "Company") (NYSE:NEM) between July 28, 2004 through April 26, 2005, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period caused Newmont's stock price to become artificially inflated and inflicted enormous damages on investors when the truth was revealed. Specifically, defendants repeatedly made positive statements about the Company's operations and financial expectations. The true facts, however, which defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, included the following:

(1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

(2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had increased, increasing total production costs and cash production costs;

(3) Newmont overstated the amount of copper and gold it could extract in 2005; and

(4) as a result of operating difficulties in the first- quarter 2005, Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and that its exploration costs would significantly increase.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

OCA INC.: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004 through June 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

(1) the Company had engaged in improper accounting practices and that it would be forced to restate prior financial results;

(2) that certain journal entries on the Company's general ledger were not recorded properly; and

(3) that certain data provided to the Company's independent accounting firm had been improperly changed.

On June 7, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying the filing of its annual report and that it intended to restate its quarterly financial results for 2004. Additionally, the Company announced that it had placed its Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew F. Palmisano Jr., on administrative leave. The Company commented in its release that it had overstated patient receivables and patient revenues for the first three quarters of 2004. Upon this disclosure, shares of OCA dropped $1.53 per share or approximately 38% to close at $2.50 per share.

OCA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE:OCA) between May 18, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, against defendants OCA, Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr. (Chief Executive Officer), Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., and David E. Verret (Chief Financial Officer).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be issued, false and misleading statements during the Class Period to artificially inflate the value of OCA stock. Specifically, on June 7, 2005, the Defendants admitted that they overstated patient receivables in the 2004 Form 10-Q's filed for the periods ending March 31, June 30 and September 30 of that year. The Company has not yet disclosed the extent of the necessary restatement of these periods, but has indicated that the amount is material and that these statements should not be relied upon by investors. The Company also disclosed that its Board of Directors had appointed a Special Committee to review "certain journal entries recorded in the Company's general ledger, the circumstances in which they originated and their impact on the Company's financial statements." In addition, the Special Committee is reviewing "certain alleged changes in data provided to the Company's independent registered public accounting firm." On this news, and the Company's continued delay in filing its annual report on Form 10-K, OCA's stock plummeted just shy of 40 percent on June 7, 2005, to close at $2.58 per share on unusually high trading volume of 9 million shares.

OCA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May 20, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants OCA, and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Barr v. OCA, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made statements that were each materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) defendants engaged in improper accounting practices. As detailed in the complaint, OCA has admitted that its prior financial reports are materially false and misleading as it announced that it is going to restate its results for the first three quarters of 2004 and potentially prior periods;

(2) that certain journal entries in the Company's general ledger were improperly recorded;

(3) that certain data provided to the Company's independent accounting firm had been improperly changed;

(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and

(5) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were materially overstated at all relevant times.

PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of PEMSTAR, Inc. ("Pemstar" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:PMTR) between January 29, 2003 and January 24, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned The Cornelia I Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc. Et al., Civ. No. 05-1182 (D. Minn.).

The complaint charges PEMSTAR and certain of the Company's executive officers, including Allen Berning, Roy Bauer, and Gregory Lea, with issuing materially false and misleading financial statements to the investing public regarding the company's financial condition and outlook in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

PEMSTAR is a provider of electronics manufacturing services to OEMs in the communications, computing, data storage, industrial, and medical equipment markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued numerous positive statements that misrepresented the true financial status of the Company and its business prospects. In fact, throughout the Class Period, PEMSTAR suffered from extensive liquidity constraints that inhibited the Company's ability to achieve the necessary gross margin expansion that was required for the Company to create and sustain accounting profits. The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company needed gross margins of at least 9% in order to achieve profitability, a level that defendants knew it was years away from attaining, if ever. Moreover, defendants further misrepresented the Company's financial condition by understating its liabilities associated with its Mexican facilities and overstating the Company's accounts receivables, which had become materially impaired. The complaint alleges that, in part, defendants carried out the fraudulent scheme in order to revive and strengthen the Company's image, as perceived by its customer base and enable the Company to raise much needed capital through the issuance of its common stock to the public at levels advantageous to the Company.

On January 24, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing that it was revising its outlook for the fiscal 2005 third quarter, implementing additional cost-reduction initiatives and restating its financial results for its fiscal year ended March 21, 2004, due to accounting discrepancies at its Mexico facility. By the time the company made this disclosure, the price of the Company's common stock had declined nearly 70% from its Class Period high.

R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of R&G Financial Corporation ("R&G Financial" or the "Company'') (NYSE:RGF), between April 21, 2003 and April 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All persons and institutions who purchased securities of R&G Financial during the Class Period may move the Court not later than June 27, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges R&G Financial and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. R&G Financial is a diversified financial holding company with operations in Puerto Rico and the United States providing banking, mortgage banking, investments, consumer finance and insurance through its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's operations and financial performance. Unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts, which defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period, included that the Company was using fraudulent accounting practices, including failing to record impairment losses for the deterioration in the value of residual interests retained, and materially overstated its net income, net gain on mortgage loan sales and net capital and that the Company was using ineffective risk-management and hedging strategies against the increasing risk of rising interest rates.

On April 25, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company would need to restate its earnings for the prior two-year period. Specifically, R&G Financial disclosed that the Company's financial reports from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004 would incur charges to reflect impairments of $90 million to $150 million on retained residual interests. As a result of this news, R&G Financial's stock price plummeted 35%, on unusually high volume, falling $23.18 in one day.

The next day, April 26, 2005, the Company announced the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation concerning the financial restatement announced by R&G Financial the previous day, as well as the underlying issues addressed in the Company's April 25 press release.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.